ADJ18158502 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration dismissed; WCJ's findings as to laches and statute of limitations upheld.

Defendant filed a petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's May 19, 2025 Finding of Fact and Order, which was dismissed by the Appeals Board as defendant was not aggrieved.

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Statute of limitationsDefendant prevailedleft knee

The WCJ found the claim barred by laches and not barred by the statute of limitations; defendant was not aggrieved and did not present evidence to challenge employment or laches; the Appeals Board upheld the WCJ's findings and dismissed the petition for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the May 19, 2025 Finding of Fact and Order (F&O) wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant "while employed during the period March 31, 1973 to November 22, 1992, claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her left knee"; that her claim was barred by laches; and that her claim was not barred by the statute of limitations.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 5909

A petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.

The Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period, issuing the decision on August 14, 2025, one day before the deadline.

From the decision · page 2Former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:

Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. WCAB (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39; Maranian v. WCAB (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068

A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award that determines substantive rights or a threshold issue fundamental to the claim.

The WCJ's finding on laches was a final order precluding the claim; interlocutory issues like date of injury are not final orders.

From the decision · page 3II A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180 (Rymer); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not `final'"]; Rymer, supra, at p.

Labor Code section 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, section 10421

Filing a frivolous or meritless petition for reconsideration may result in sanctions.

The Appeals Board cautioned defendant about potential sanctions for filing a meritless petition.

From the decision · page 5We observe that defendant's choice to file the Petition where defendant successfully defeated applicant's claim and where the favorable decision by the WCJ is arguably not supported by substantial evidence is at best perplexing. Defendant is reminded that filing a frivolous or meritless petition for reconsideration could subject it to sanctions. (Lab. Code, § 5813; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421.)

ADJ18158502 · August 14, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page